Is it better to win against lower players and get far in a tournament or is it better to beat top players along the way? This question stems from the Indian Wells debate. I have seen some posters say that it is good that these players are getting the wins and that the win builds confidence. Does it build confidence or does it make them feel insecure to know that this win was because a lot of the top players were not present adn those that were present were not healthy. I know that it is not a guarentee that the top players would have won the matches had they shown up, but more than likely they would. I also recognize that it is not the players fault that the other players did not show up, and they can only play the draw that is in front of them.

My personal feeling is that is it best to win big and beat the best.

TheBoiledEgg

Mar 12th, 2002, 03:00 PM

Winning is a habit and losing is also a habit

you go out and beat whoever is put in front of you gives you confidence simple as that.

Beating the top players is definately a big plus ( not to mention the added bonus pts).

Anna Smashnova has been winning lately which she has got used to having won two titles earlier this yr.

Other players haven't won since last yr (maybe 1 match)

-Sonic-

Mar 12th, 2002, 03:01 PM

Well of course its better to win by beating the best, but it doesn't mean that just winning alone is crap.

Any win will give you confidence. If its in a huge arena in a high prestige event, it shouldn't matter who you played. Beating a big name may give u more confidence, but beating anyone is a good good thing.

Williams Rulez

Mar 12th, 2002, 03:06 PM

lol, why would you get insecure if you beat lowly ranked players? You're supposed to beat all opposition you get.

But for sure, when you beat a better opponent, you'd gain more from it. More confidence, more experience, more satisfaction and more ranking points too ;)

Winning a tournament is great, and I'm sure no one out there would think after they won a tournament:

"Oh no, I won this tournament by beating lowly ranked players. What am I going to do now? :confused: "

But to answer your question, beating top players along the way is better :)

brickhousesupporter

Mar 12th, 2002, 03:11 PM

When I say insecure, i mean that your game is only good enough to beat the mid rank players.

-Sonic-

Mar 12th, 2002, 03:17 PM

Well if u only have mid ranked players left in your part of the draw, you know u are beating the players who beat the top ranked players.

not your fault they all lost.

you wouldn't get insecure, unless u didn't beat a top player in any event ever.

thefreedesigner

Mar 12th, 2002, 03:27 PM

It's about winning.

Monica took mucho stick for her jaunt round the far east and asia back end of last year, but look at how it stood her in good stead for when she did come up against the more consistent highly ranked players.

Is it better for Anna Kournikova (I know this really has nothing to do with her so I'll kind of apologise in advance) to win one round then lose to Venus - or any Top 10 player every other week, or get the confidence of winning 4 matches (maybe 5 and a title?) that will help all-round game should she eventually get the showdown with a marquee player?

Everybody has to start somewhere, and in tennis I guess it helps to start with winning.

sartrista7

Mar 12th, 2002, 04:14 PM

Well, if you're an up'n'comer it's of course better to reach a Slam semi by beating, say, the world #1 along the way than by beating a row of unseeded players. People take you more seriously, too: at Wimbledon '99, it was Stevenson who beat Dokic, but Dokic was seen as more of a threat afterwards. But you've got to be good to get to ANY big semi: sure, it *only* proves you can beat the mid-rank players, Emmanuelle Gagliardi for instance hasn't shown herself to be a challenge to the top players. BUT: it shows you can beat them consistently, you can string together four wins in a row, you can pull out the victory with a Tier I QF at stake. Nathalie Dechy put the #1 seed out, but you'd rather be in Gagliardi's shoes right now. She's the one still standing, after all.
And whoever you beat, the winning feeling will *always* be a confidence boost. Anna Smashnova beat no top player (bar Kournikova) in her ten-match streak at the start of the year, but it CLEARLY gave her confidence. (It can sometimes work the other way though - Dokic, Stevenson and Lucic all felt the pressure after Wimbledon, even though Stevenson hadn't beaten any top players and Dokic and Lucic had.)

Anyway, to conclude: brickhousesupporter, you're right: all that Gagliardi will take away from IW is that her game is good enough to take out mid-level players like herself. But she did it consistently, and won four matches in a row in a Tier I - something she'd never done before. It's a step up. And she hasn't been shown that her game would NOT have been enough to take out Kim, had she played her: she has, after all, beaten the woman who beat the woman who took out the #1 seed.

samsam4087

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:05 PM

It is better to beat top players along the way.

Mrs. Dimitrova

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:06 PM

Samspam. :o

Now stop bumping threads bitch.

Otlichno

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:07 PM

SpamSpam :bigcry:

volta

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:08 PM

Samspam. :o

Now stop bumping threads bitch.

THIS:o

Certinfy

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:08 PM

Of course beating top players along the way is better :o

Vanity Bonfire

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:09 PM

:happy:

Shonami Slam

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:30 PM

Winning is a habit and losing is also a habit

you go out and beat whoever is put in front of you gives you confidence simple as that.

Beating the top players is definately a big plus ( not to mention the added bonus pts).

Anna Smashnova has been winning lately which she has got used to having won two titles earlier this yr.

Other players haven't won since last yr (maybe 1 match)

oh my god.
8 years ago????
* 8 * ???!!!!

i'm old.

Volcana

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:37 PM

Is it better to win against lower players and get far in a tournament or is it better to beat top players along the way?It's better to win a gainst lower-ranked played. The rankign system doesn't tell you how GOOD players are. It's just a mathematical formula to determine a fair seeding.

I used to play beach volleyball. Never won a tournament. But made the finals once. And that carried me long after I forgot who I beat along the way. You know what you get for making the finals at an amateur tournament? A crappy T-Shirt, and maybe a decent raw bar. But all the other players know what that t-shirt means. It means you aren't nuthin', you're a little tiny bit of somethin'-somethin'.

Nathlie Tauziat made the Wmbledon final. And did some other stuff. Fifty years from now, what will anybody remember? The fact that you went far in a big tournament counts far more than who you beat getting there.

debby

Apr 15th, 2010, 03:46 PM

Well to be fair, Robin Soderling didn't win RG 2009 but I am sure that in 10 years, we will all remember he reached the final because he had to beat Rafael Nadal, who was undefeated in 4 years there and the huge favourite.

PLP

Apr 15th, 2010, 04:04 PM

SO confused by this thread. :lol:
Why was this started and why was it bumped?

Volcana

Apr 15th, 2010, 08:05 PM

Well to be fair, Robin Soderling didn't win RG 2009 but I am sure that in 10 years, we will all remember he reached the final because he had to beat Rafael Nadal, who was undefeated in 4 years there and the huge favourite.Until you wrote 'because he had to beat Rafael Nadal' I had no idea why you were bringing that up.

Perhaps I mis-applied 'is it better'?

It's cetainly makes you more memorable, as a player, to have a big win over a great player. But in terms of your development as a player, going deep into a big tournament is much more important. Lots of players freeze up on the big stage. The circumstance gets to them, not the opponent. Knowing you went out and performed on the big stage can make all the difference.

BluSthil

Apr 15th, 2010, 09:09 PM

Is it better to win against lower players and get far in a tournament or is it better to beat top players along the way? This question stems from the Indian Wells debate. I have seen some posters say that it is good that these players are getting the wins and that the win builds confidence. Does it build confidence or does it make them feel insecure to know that this win was because a lot of the top players were not present adn those that were present were not healthy. I know that it is not a guarentee that the top players would have won the matches had they shown up, but more than likely they would. I also recognize that it is not the players fault that the other players did not show up, and they can only play the draw that is in front of them.

My personal feeling is that is it best to win big and beat the best.
Players who are not in the top 10 and who go on to beat a top 10 player, must feel pretty confident that they can beat another top 10 player. Although, there is a big difference between a #1 2 or 3 player and a # 10 !!!

debby

Apr 15th, 2010, 10:15 PM

Until you wrote 'because he had to beat Rafael Nadal' I had no idea why you were bringing that up.

Perhaps I mis-applied 'is it better'?

It's cetainly makes you more memorable, as a player, to have a big win over a great player. But in terms of your development as a player, going deep into a big tournament is much more important. Lots of players freeze up on the big stage. The circumstance gets to them, not the opponent. Knowing you went out and performed on the big stage can make all the difference.

Yeah but see Safina, she wasn't living up to her potential until she had to play Justine Henin in Berlin 2008. She beat her, it was a huge win, she didn't expect it at all... then she was on a roll and finally won Berlin and reached RG final... I don't think she would have done it if she didn't have to beat Hénin, perhaps it was like the sudden start of something.

Wiggly

Apr 15th, 2010, 10:21 PM

I think someone making the QFs at Wimbledon but did so by beating Serena and Venus will be much more confident than someone who made the Final by avoiding any top 16 seed.

But I would prefer a great run than a huge 1R upset and a 2R loss.
À la Dulko.